# Mendoza v.City of San Jose > District Court, N.D. California · April 17, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063712 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** April 17, 2020 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063712 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CRISTINA MENDOZA, Case No. 17-cv-03579-SVK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 76 11 Defendants. 12 13 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Cristina Mendoza’s motion to file a first amended 14 complaint. Dkt. 76. In this amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to: (1) name two additional 15 defendants, Skyport Plaza Owner’s Association and Hudson Pacific Properties L.P (“the two new 16 defendants”); (2) clarify the address and parcel number of the property where Plaintiff alleges she 17 was injured; (3) seek damages and injunctive relief against the two new defendants; (4) assert a 18 duty to inspect and maintain the area where Plaintiff was injured as to unspecified defendants; (5) 19 state that she intends to return to the property; (6) remove references to defendants that have been 20 dismissed; and (7) remove claims and allegations associated with municipal liability. See Dkts. 76 21 at 2, 76-1. All parties in this litigation have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. 22 Dkts. 9, 28, 32. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for 23 decision without oral argument. Based on the arguments and the relevant law, the Court 24 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons discussed below. 25 “Requests for leave to amend should be granted with ‘extreme liberality.’” Brown v. 26 Stored Value Cards, Inc., 953 F.3d 567, 574 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 27 572 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2009)) (internal citation omitted). “Five factors are taken into account 1 opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the 2 complaint.” Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 3 Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004)). Here, Defendants Hudson Skyport 4 Plaza, LLC; Hudson Skyport Plaza Land, LLC; and Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. (collectively, 5 the “Hudson Defendants”) argue that allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint would be 6 prejudicial and would cause undue delay. Dkt. 80. 7 First, the Hudson Defendants argue that allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint would 8 prejudice them because Plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks to revive claims for injunctive relief 9 that were already disposed of in a Consent Decree (Dkt. 44). Dkt. 80 at 3. The Hudson 10 Defendants contend that new defendant Hudson Pacific Properties L.P. is a subsidiary of one of 11 the Hudson Defendants and that one of the Hudson Defendants is the general partner and primary 12 operating entity for all Hudson properties. Id. They also contend that one of the Hudson 13 Defendants owns 25% of new defendant Skyport Plaza Owner’s Association. Id. Plaintiff has 14 stated that she will not bring claims for injunctive relief against any of the Hudson Defendants. 15 Dkts. 76 at 6, 76-1 at 18. The Court does not find that allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint 16 would be prejudicial to the Hudson Defendants. Plaintiff has a valid reason for amending her 17 complaint - she discovered two new defendants who may be responsible for her injury and seeks 18 to avoid an “empty chair” at trial. Though the Hudson Defendants appear to argue that the two 19 new defendants would be covered by the Consent Decree, the Court does not find that such an 20 argument constitutes prejudice as to amendment. Rather, the two new defendants may advance 21 that argument by motion at the appropriate time in the litigation. 22 Second, the Hudson Defendants contend that amending the complaint would create undue 23 delay. Dkt. 80 at 3-4. They argue that because the current mediation deadline is June 30, 2020, 24 amending the complaint to add the two new defendants could delay mediation efforts while the 25 new parties get up to speed. Id. The Hudson Defendants also argue that a delay would prejudice 26 their ability to have Defendant PG&E contribute to or pay for the settlement of this case. Id. The 27 Court is similarly unpersuaded by these arguments. If the two new defendants are as closely 1 likely to be able to familiarize themselves with the current litigation quickly. Further, given the 2 || uncertainty surrounding the current COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely that current deadlines will 3 || change. As for the impact on Defendant PG&E’s participation in this litigation, the Hudson 4 || Defendants only refer to Defendant PG&E’s anticipated exit from bankruptcy in June without 5 providing any factual support as to how an amendment at this time would negatively impact 6 || Defendant PG&E’s participation in the litigation in the future. 7 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to file a 8 || first amended complaint. Plaintiff must file her amended complaint within fourteen (14) days of 9 || this Order. 10 SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: April 17, 2020 12 & 13 Sesm ve Kut SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063712. Public record. Not legal advice.